Gay group attacks South Park for ‘gay slur’

Post your comment

Reader comments

The “fag” episode had nothing to do with homosexuals and EVERYTHING to do with jerk ass noise polluting dated loser motorcycle riders. The show was funny. It was hilarious actually. But of course, it’s easier to pick on a tv show than where the real issues are with our lame american “president.” Nice glaad.

I can’t see what all the fuss is about. South Park insults literally EVERY minority and majority group there is, its said far worse before now and because no group is safe from being attacked in it I don’t see the problem. As much as some political correctness may be needed in this world, we need shows like South Park so we can just sit back and laugh sometimes, even if it’s humour is insulting and “in your face” (that’s what makes it what it is in the first place, to change that would be to essentially castrate the show).

Having lived in the USA for some time, I found I had to be careful with my sense of humour being very dry & sarcastic. I wonder if the satire which South Park humour is so often based on, has been missed by GLAAD. I mean, was it not the whole point of the show in question that “fag” is a derogatory term used by idiots, and hence the “reclaiming” of the word in the episode being the basis for it being funny?

Personally I find South Park very funny, like any good comedy, humour sometimes gets close to the bone, but in this case it seems clear (from my perspective anyhow) that the humour is on our side and pokes fun at bigots instead.

It reminds a bit of the ending to the guitar hero episode of South Park (I don’t watch it THAT much, but I have seen these two episodes).

I’m not about to pass judgement on this episode without having seen it. but I really hope it’s not based around that completely erroneous argument that “fag” no longer means “gay man”. ah well, it’s on tonight in the UK I think, I’ll just wait and see.

okay, i’ve watched it. and it would seem i was right. the whole message behind the episode is that we shouldn’t be offended by people using the word “fag” as an all-purpose derogatory term, because its meaning has changed (as it has done many times in the past) and it has no connotations of homosexuality anymore. unfortunately this is absolutely false. the word is still universally understood to mean “gay man” – not just in outdated dictionaries, but in the real world – and its more general usage is derived directly from this meaning.

the single nugget of truth in the whole thing is that very young children – who don’t yet know what homosexuality even is – will still use the word in their ignorance (and that’s supposed to be a good thing?) but sooner or later they all still learn what it really means. they come to associate homosexuality with this word they have long held as one of the ultimate insults, and therefore reach the conclusion that being gay is inherently wrong.

parker and stone may or may not have had good intentions (perhaps they genuinely believe they’re on “our side”, or perhaps they’re just trying to legitimise their own use of the word because they find it “fun to say”, as one character put it) – and, either way, i don’t think they’re homophobes – but they missed the point by a country mile.

I tend to think that actions such as this by iconic TV programmes like South Park will bring about a change of meaning. The bright viewers will probably understand what is going on and the less bright will probably think it does actually mean something else.

parker and stone may or may not have had good intentions (perhaps they genuinely believe they’re on “our side”, or perhaps they’re just trying to legitimise their own use of the word because they find it “fun to say”, as one character put it) – and, either way, i don’t think they’re homophobes – but they missed the point by a country mile.

This is pretty much what I assumed it would be. Parker and Stone seem like nice guys, and I do find South Park very entertaining, but their soap-boxing is terrible and full of cliched, moronic arguments. Past “gems” have been “it’s OK to make insensitive jokes about AIDS now because it’s been around long enough” and “hate crimes: a savage hypocrisy”.

Do us a favour, boys: stick to the funny and leave the serious to competent writers.

Well, to put a damper on your acceptance of slurs, comical or not, think about the hundreds of thousands of kids in school yards on the receiving end of such taunts on a daily basis, often driving many of them to commit suicide. Words have consequences, no matter their context. Substitute “fag” for “nigger”, “spic”, “gook”, “chink” and you’ll see a totally different reaction, both are derogatory, part of the dehumanising process and equally deplorable.

KRAMER ON STAGE SAID THE WORD NIGGER, BLACK FOLKS WENT UP READY TO LYNCH HIM, AND NOW HIS CAREER IS DOWN. Is not okay to use the word “nigger” but yet is okay to use the word FAG, faggot, but we cant lynch. Nigger is a nasty word so is the word faggot. Are you queens that stupid or that ignorant to let this word be okay and let people get away with saying it. Get up and lynch anyone to when the word FAG or FAGGOT is mentioned. LETS NOT BE SOME DUMB SCARY CATS, FIGHT BACK…

Wendy, exactly. The next time a gay person is bashed or killed, I don’t want to hear the proponents of “fag” in a comedic situation to be outraged or upset about it. Not all of society is that sophisticated to see through the so called “humour” that many who enjoy watching South Park support. This kind of humour could empower the rotten apples in society who take pleasure in taunting and degrading LGBT people with hateful slurs. I can just see Fred Phelps holding up his “God Hates Fags” banner….jumping for joy. Oh my, he’s now gained some gay supporters, saying “fag” is only a joke, doesn’t mean to harm anyone. I don’t think Matthew Sheperd’s mother would find South Park amusing or any parent of a murdered gay child, killed for just existing or some of the parents of school children bullied on a daily basis. Some joke! Words, no matter the context, do have consequences.

I think GLAAD has missed the boat with this one, which is a shame as they usually are quite balanced and are usually not overly reactionary.

This is certainly not the first time South Park has lampooned the use of the word “fag” – and contrary to some of the opinions here, they have also satirised the use of racist language, including “nigger” and “coon”. So this is hardly new territory for Stone & Parker.

The problem I have is the argument that “some people won’t get it”. So because some people are not intelligent enough to understand what satire is, that means it should be censored? There has been a lot said about the right to freedom of speech lately and I think it is abhorrent that when someone attempts to use comedy or satire to point out the idiocy of prejudice, they get lambasted for it because some people might not get the joke.

South Park is extremely popular with younger people and I think it is a discredit to their intelligence if people assume they do not understand satire – if that were the case, they wouldn’t understand the show in its entirety.

I agree with Andrew. Langauge evolves over time. Gay meant something different 50 years ago to its accepted meaning now. The writers of South Park have undertaken a major push to change the interpretation in many people’s minds of the meaning of the word fag. Older generations will hold on to the old meaning longer than younger generations and some of us will probably reminisce in years to come at a long ago lost insult to the gay community.

Andrew, some of us do understand what satire is about, I for one do. The fact of the matter is, “fag” connotes hatred of gay people. Its used to demean, dehumanise and denigrate us, no matter the context in which it is used. The sad part of this is, YOUNG people today are using this term to bully their school colleagues in the play ground. Are we supposed to say nothing because using the word is not that a big of a deal? Its wrong in any context. Would you be ok if an employer used it freely and claimed it was said in jest?